Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6531 (4996)

[[e-mail]]

> > > Because  "UTF-8 string " is used everywhere in EAI RFCs, in
> > > order to avoid the possible misunderstanding,  I remembered
> > > that the WG  suggested to add this sentence " That string
> > > MUST NOT contain any
> > > of the ASCII graphics or control characters." when discussing
> > > this issue.

> > Sorry, but there is no clear definition what the "ASCII
> > graphics [characters]" is.

> Sure there is.   It is in the ASCII Standard, cited as [ASCII]
> in the document.  If that is inconvenient to find, see SeIf
> nothing else, see Section 4.2 of RFC 20.

John, the problem is that by that definition, the sentence shifts from being
confusing to flat-out incorrect. The definition of atext is RFC 5322 is:

atext           =   ALPHA / DIGIT /    ; Printable US-ASCII
                       "!" / "#" /        ;  characters not including
                       "$" / "%" /        ;  specials.  Used for atoms.
                       "&" / "'" /
                       "*" / "+" /
                       "-" / "/" /
                       "=" / "?" /
                       "^" / "_" /
                       "`" / "{" /
                       "|" / "}" /
                       "~"

But according to section 4.2 of RFC 20, everything in atext other than ALPHA
and DIGIT qualifies as a "graphics character". So the assertion that when atext
is composed of a "UTF8 string" it MUST NOT contain "graphics characters"
directly contradicts the ABNF definition of atext. The fact is, only
the specials subset of graphics characters are excluded.

And FWIW, I also stand by my assertion that the term "ASCII graphics
characters" is not well defined - although perhaps "no longer well defined"
would be a better way to put it. There is nothing in the terminology section
that points a reader to the definition in ASCII or RFC 20. And based on what I
see in other documents, the common use definition has shifted away from what's
in the ASCII specification to something which has more utility in the
modern world.

In any case, IMO there are multiple technical problems with the bullet
point in question - WG consensus on the text notwithstanding.

				Ned